No question can arise as to Christ’s intention to extend his kingdom abroad among the pagan
nations; the Messianic predictions of the Old Testament had already intimated the
general diffusion of the worship of Jehovah; and John the Baptist had hinted at
the possible transfer of the kingdom of God from the
Jews to the heathen, in case the former should prove to be unworthy of it. And
what was afterward novel to the apostles was, not that the pagans should be
converted and received into the fellowship of the Messiah, but that they should
be received without accepting the Mosaic law. It was against the latter view,
and not the former, that even the strictest Judaizers objected. It was to refute
this that the Ebionites appealed to Christ’s strict observance of the law, and
to his saying, in the Sermon on the Mount, that he “came not to destroy, but to fufil the law,” and that
“not one jot or tittle of the law should pass away.”

We must not oppose this doctrine
by quoting Christ’s declarations that the essence of religion must be found in the
soul, and that outward things could neither cleanse nor sanctify mankind;134134 Such as Matt., xv.,
11; Mark, vii., 15. for even
in the light of the Old Testament it was known that piety of heart was indispensable
to a true fulfilment of the law. Christ himself appealed to a passage in the Old
Testament (Hos., vi., 6) in proof of this; and even the well-disposed scribe (Mark,
xii., 33) admitted it. Still, the necessity of an outward observance of the law
might be maintained by those who deemed inward purity essential to its value.135135 Even Philo, from the stand-point of his religious idealism,
held the necessity of a strict observance of the ritual law, believing that it facilitated
the understanding of the spiritual sense of the law. He asserted this
against the idealists, who adhered absolutely to the letter, in his treatise “De Migratione
Abraami.”

Viewing
the relation of Christ’s doctrine to the legal stand-point only
89on this side, we might conceive
it to have stood as follows: Directing his attention only to the necessity of proper
dispositions in order to piety, he held, as of fundamental importance, that nothing
in religion not springing from genuinely pious feelings could be of any avail; and,
holding fast to this, did not investigate further the question of the continued
authority of the ceremonial law. Satisfied with saving what was most essential,
he permitted the other to stand as inviolable in its Divine authority. Such a course
would have been eminently proper in Christ, if we regard him as nothing more than
a genuine reformer Every attempt at true reformation must have, not a negative,
but a positive point of departure; must start with some truth which it fully and
necessarily recognizes.

The view which we have just set forth is not invalidated
by Christ’s denunciations of the Pharisees for their arbitrary statutes and burdensome
additions to the law.Matt., xxiii. In all these he contrasted the law, rightly and spiritually
understood, with their false traditions and interpretations. As for actual violation
of the law, he could never be justly accused of it; even Paul, who so strenuously
resisted the continued obligation of the law, declares that Christ submitted to it.136136Gal., iv., 4.

135 Even Philo, from the stand-point of his religious idealism,
held the necessity of a strict observance of the ritual law, believing that it facilitated
the understanding of the spiritual sense of the law. He asserted this
against the idealists, who adhered absolutely to the letter, in his treatise “De Migratione
Abraami.”